I suggested yesterday that it is clear that Christians have developed their understanding of Scripture from the earliest times; that tradition, oral and written to which Paul refers in his second letter to the Thessalonians, has been preserved and studied. One of the distinctive features of Christianity is that it sees God in Three Persons, the Blessed Trinity. We like to say that it is inherent in Scripture, and indeed Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all found there; but the relation between the Three has not always been clear, and if the early history of Christianity shows us anything, it is that left to themselves, even learned men can be led, and lead others, astray. In this short series I want to examine the developing understanding of ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ in the early Church.

Strictly speaking heresy is only rightly so called when it appears in opposition to orthodoxy, and it is often the case in the early Church that beliefs which were, when enunciated debatable, later became classified as heretical, and it is well to say upfront that in the long debate over this matter, heresy has played a useful part in forcing the Church to be clearer about what is and is not orthodox belief; another reason, of course, why absent authority, chaos is not far away. Most Trinitarians accept a definition arrived at by the Church and guaranteed by it, even if they cannot accept the Church which gave that guarantee.

One common early reading, which is still present in some Pentecostal churches is called ‘Modalism’. Modalism is the belief that God, rather than being three persons, is one person who reveals himself in three “modes,” much as an actor might play three roles in a movie. It is also called Sabellianism or monarchianism. Modalism is associated with two notable early church figures, Praxeas and Sabellius, both of whom gained a large following in the church in the late 2nd (Praxeas) and early 3rd centuries (Sabellius). The size of their following and an explanation for it is given by Tertullian in A.D. 200:

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation [of the Trinity], on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God. They fail to understand that, although he is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with his own order. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity, whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves the preeminent credit of being worshippers of the one God, as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. (Against Praxeas 3)

There is not One Divine Person, there are Three. The earliest definition of Our Faith is to be found in St. Irenaeus:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:

[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them.

And in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation

And in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Before all things God was alone … He was alone because there was nothing external to him but himself. Yet even then was he not alone, for he had with him that which he possessed in himself—that is to say, his own Reason.

… Although God had not yet sent out his Word, he still had him within himself …

I may therefore without rashness establish that even then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone, since he had within himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, his Word, which he made second to himself by agitating it within Himself.

It is easy to see from this how Arius could conclude: “there was a time when the Son did not exist.”

The early church answer was that there was a time when the Son was not separate from the Father, but there was never a time when he did not exist. Before He was separate from the Father, He was already the Logos inside of God. There was a term for this: homoousios (of the same substance). It was so important that it was inserted in the Nicene Creed twice.

The second part of this series will explain why this word was so important. But already we have, I think, established that left to themselves, there is no guarantee that theologians or ordinary Christians, will come to an orthodox understanding of who God is.

And if you don’t know who Jesus is, how can you know him personally? Again, a simple request, do show me one example in Scripture of anyone writing about Jesus as you do. If you cannot find anyone in the Bible saying ‘I know Jesus personally’ then frankly, whatever you are peddling, it isn’t Biblical. This is the central problem for you Bosco, you take the Bible and you cherry=pick snippets to support something that has nothing to do with the Jesus we see there or with the Christians we see there. You do know that the first followers of Jesus were called Christians. Are you a Christian Bosco? Simple question.

So, Bosco, you know Jesus personally, Splendid. It means you can clear up for us all the question of the Trinity. Can you ask Jesus for me whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, or just the Father. I am sure since you are on such good terms with him he will answer this question. Very much looking forward to being able to clear this up. What’s that, Jesus isn’t talking to you on the subject? Sad. Ask again.

Great piece, C. I find it particularly interesting because the Apostles had no New Testament – they wrote it after all – so they were working from their understanding of the Old and the teaching of Jesus Himself during His 3.5 years with them.

I wonder if there is much scholarship on the parallel between the magisterium and the teaching authority of the priests in the Old Testament and the Pharisees in the New(whose position “in the seat of Moses”) He instructed His followers to respect. My dissertation on Josephus makes a point of his contention that the priests should still wield teaching authority.

Yes, and I think that is actually, for me, the strongest argument in favour of Catholicism/Orthodoxy: it seems strange to think that Irenaeus should have these thoughts unless John the Apostle already set them in motion. It would make sense that John did, because the Apocalypse seems concerned about the transmission of faith from one generation to the next.

One of the striking things from Paul, John, Jude and Peter is the great concern evinced for transmission of the correct oral and written tradition. The idea that their followers would have been less concerned seems an odd one.

Yes, I agree. I think what is troubling, at least for some of us, is that the Bible doesn’t present you with a policy document for how to handle such things (not that I like policy documents per se). We could both make arguments for our side of the debate using Biblical material and in-and-of-itself I doubt the argument would go anywhere. The only way I can see resolution is to make an appeal to authority, which gives the Catholic side a strong position.

I agree that that is a good question. The answer I would give is that the early Church did not grow out of the Bible, it grew out of the early Church. The Bible is clear,if you have a dispute, take it to the Church. Now for me, that is critical. One might wonder whether that Church is the Orthodox or the Catholic, or one might, as I did for a long time, take the view that the C of E is part of that Church, but where I find myself at a loss is how that authority can lie elsewhere?

For me, it really comes down to the grace question, which I know is Bosco’s favourite too and was important to NEO as a Lutheran – whom I miss, by the way, as we all do. I don’t know if you have seen the film “Luther”, starring Joseph Fiennes. I have heard that it is pretty bad historically-speaking, but it captures very well the emotion and sentiment of a big part of my religious/spiritual character. Being prone to depression and obsession and other parts of the “feel bad rainbow”, I always felt distant from God. Grace was important for helping me really open up to Him.

I miss Neo too, but understand his need for a break; others, not so much.

No, I haven’t seen Luther. I sometimes feel I am a very odd sort of Christian in so far as as much as I should like to have some passionate feelings, I have none. I simply have, and have always had, a settled conviction that Jesus is Lord and that what the NT tells us is true.

I think you are one of the unfortunate casualties of our post-modern age that emphasizes emotion and subjectivity so much that it denigrates other forms of spirituality. I have an unfortunate bias in that the “drier” forms of Christianity I experienced seemed to be somewhat judgemental/loveless/legalistic, which I freely admit was my subjective perception. But I have come to a place now where I appreciate the stability and wisdom of the “slow burning candle”. I am particularly disgusted by churches that pass round the collection during or after particularly emotional worship songs – that feels like manipulation to me.

Historically speaking, I think I am an old-fashioned ‘High and Dry’ Anglo-Catholic – unfortunately, the Church and the modern world have driven us to extinction or to seek refuge where we can find it 🙂

Shame – and that is the point of the prophets and the New Testament; God’s garden is supposed to have flowers of many kinds all getting along together. I’m thinking of writing a piece at some point about our post-modern experience. Sometimes I like to think on the meta-level/psychological level about our experience.

It is. I liked the quiet dignity of my old Anglo-Catholic Church, but when the priest was replaced by a more evangelical figure, I felt no longer at home. For a while I flirted with Orthodoxy, but in the end it was just too ‘foreign’. It ought not to matter, but it does, Were there an Ordinariate Church within any reasonable distance, I should go there 🙂

Yes, I sympathize. I didn’t much like the Catholic Church I attended once in Cambridge – pretty snobby of me as they were lovely priests, but it just felt “foreign”. Fisher House is a modern build too, which is particularly jarring when compared with the old chapels and churches of Cambridge.

Yes, just so. I had much rather an old brick building, slightly dark inside, built in the Flemish style, with a liturgy based around Tallis or Byrd, but what can one do? English Catholic identity is quite unlike anything else, which is not surprising given our insular history, exasperated by Charles and Cromwell. We wouldn’t be ringing our hands if we lived in the medieval period when we traded wool with the continent.

That reminds me of the piece you wrote on Catholic youth. Young people (myself included) feel the strain of the conflict between the world and the church. We know we need to create a counter-culture, but we don’t want to live in a siege-mentality either. I can be a difficult line to walk, particularly in this world of advertising. I hope when Jesus returns I never have to watch a Calvin Klein advert ever again. That would make me happy.

It is. I must say I feel feel freer where I am now. I have always have a crucifix in my office, but used to wonder when someone would complain – now I have several and feel very happy that no one can complain 🙂

That is very good indeed. I have two passages pinned up in my cubicle to keep me going: the Jeremiah one (‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ says the LORD) and one from John 6 (‘My Father’s will is this – that I should lose none of those He has given Me, and I will raise them up at the last day…the will of God is this – to believe in the One He has sent’).

I think one of the prayers I have found the most moving is “Lord, help my unbelief”. It’s a shame that outsiders don’t know the Bible contains some very visceral and heart-wrenching prayers that don’t sound like meaningless piety. The Psalms should be a daily reading in public.

I think that is one of the reasons God calls David a man after His own heart: David held nothing back from God; David’s faith was profoundly relational and guided by a vision that transcended his own Old Testament dispensation, which is why he had the Ark in the midst of the people in Jerusalem rather than with the Tabernacle in Gibeah or wherever it was at that time. He would have rejoiced to see Jesus impart the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, to see the Spirit of God living in human temples.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris